Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the anesthetization and fixation efficacy of “soft” and “hard” freshwater benthic meiofauna: what is the best method for specimen preservation?

  • Research paper
  • Published:
Limnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sampling freshwater biological diversity is a challenge when it comes down to techniques for meiofauna fixation and preservation because this polyphyletic group of taxa is highly diverse. The aim of this study is to test the performance of three anesthetics (CO2, MgCl2 and low temperature) and three fixatives (formaldehyde 4 %; buffered formaldehyde 4 and 70 % ethanol) in the preservation of “soft” (gastrotrichs and rotifers) and “hard” (tardigrades and copepods) freshwater benthic meiofaunal assemblages. Due to these different morphological structures, we expected that treatment performance would vary among taxa in the quality of specimen fixation. Results revealed that the meiofaunal abundances of samples sorted alive or after the treatments with a coupling of anesthetics and fixatives were not different. However, preservation of specimens varied substantially among “soft” and “hard” meiofauna and among treatments. The use of 4 % buffered formaldehyde is highly recommended for freshwater meiofauna, while unbuffered formaldehyde should be avoided. Studies that have “soft” meiofauna as target organisms are recommended to use some type of anesthetic, although it is necessary to use a specific one for each taxon as they respond in different ways to different anesthetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Formaldehyde 4 % is the same as 10 % formalin, since 100 % formalin contains 40 % formaldehyde.

References

  • Assavaaree M, Hagiwara A, Ide K, Maruyama K, Lubzens E (2001a) Low-temperature preservation (at 4° C) of marine rotifer Brachionus. Aquac Res 32:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assavaaree M, Hagiwara A, Lubzens E (2001b) Factors affecting low temperature preservation of the marine rotifer Brachionus rotundiformis Tschugunoff. Hydrobiologia 446(447):355–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balian EV, Segers H, Lévequè C, Martens K (2008) The freshwater animal diversity assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia 595:627–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balsamo M, Grilli P. Guidi L, D’Hondt JL (2014) Gastrotricha—biology, ecology and systematics. Families Dasydytidae, Dichaeturidae, Neogosseidae, Proichthydiidae. Identification guides to the plankton and benthos of inland waters. Weikersheim: Backhuys Publishers

  • Black AR, Dodson SI (2003) Ethanol: a better short-term preservation technique for freshwater branchiopoda. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 1:45–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caramujo MJ, Mendes CRB, Cartaxana P, Brotas V, Boavida MJ (2008) Influence of drought on algal biofilms and meiofaunal assemblages of temperate reservoirs and rivers. Hydrobiologia 598:77–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • di Castri F, Vernhes JR, Younés T (1992) Inventoring and monitoring biodiversity: a proposalfor an international network Biol Internat 27:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell RK, Coddington JA (1994) Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 345:101–118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Curini-Galletti M, Artois T, Delogu V, de Smet WH, Fontaneto D, Jondelius U, Leasi F, Martínez A, Meyer-Wachsmuth I, Nilsson KS, Tongiorgi P, Worsaae K, Todaro MA (2012) Patterns of Diversity in Soft-Bodied Meiofauna: dispersal Ability and Body Size Matter. PLoS One 7:e33801

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Development Core Team R (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing JA (1984) Sampling the benthos of standing waters, p. 87–130. In Downing JA, Rigler FH (eds.), A manual on methods for the assessment of secondary productivity in fresh waters. BlackwellScientific Publications

  • Encarnação J, Leitão F, Range P, Piló D, Chícharo MA, Chícaro L (2013) The influence of submarine freshwater discharge on subtidal meiofaunal assemblages in south Portugal (Algarve). Est Coast Shelf Sci 130:202–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca G, Fehlauer-Ale KH (2012) Three in one: fixing marine nematodes for ecological, molecular and morphological studies. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 10:516–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaneto D, Herniou E, Barraclough TG, Ricci C (2007) On the global distribution of microscopic animals: new worldwide data on bdelloid rotifers. Zool Stud 46:336–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox CH, Johnson FB, Whiting J, Roller PP (1985) Formaldehyde fixation. J Histochem Cytochem 33:845–853

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garey JR, Mcinnes SJ, Nicholas PB (2008) Global diversity of tardigrades (Tardigrada) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595:101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston GR, Bartlett JHW, McAllister AP, Heard RW (1996) Biomass variations of estuarine macrobenthos preserved in ethanol and formalin. Estuaries 19:674–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere O (2009) Meiobenthology. Springer, The Microscopic Motile Fauna of Aquatic Sediments

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn D (2014) Correspondence analysis: exploring data and identifying patterns, p. 307-341. In: Glynn D, Fischer K (eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics. Corpus-driven approach. Mouton de Grutyer

  • Goswami SC (2004) Zooplankton methodology, collection and identification–a field manual. National Institute of Oceanography

  • Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenacre MJ (2007) Correspondence analysis in practice. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press

  • Higgins RP, Thiel H (1988) Introduction to the Study of Meiofauna. Smithsonian Institution Press

  • Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hulings NC, Gray JS (1971) A Manual for the Study of Meiofauna. Smithsonian Contribution Zoology Number

  • IARC (2006) Formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tert-butoxypropan-2-ol. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, 88

  • Ivell R (1983) Technical note: the preparation of molluscan Tissue for production estimates. J Mollus Stud 49:18–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapiris K, Miliou H, Moraitou-Apostolopouloum M (1997) Effects of formaldehyde preservation on biometrical characters, biomass and biochemical composition of Acartia clausi (Copepoda, Calanoida). Helgol Meeresunters 51:95–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber C, Zeileis A. (2008) Applied econometrics with R. Spinger-Verlag, New York. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=AER. Accessed 05 Mar 2016

  • Kosara R, Bendix F, Hauser H (2006) Parallel Sets: interactive exploration and visual analysis of categorical data. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 12:558–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koste W, Shiel RJ (1986) Rotifera from Australian Inland waters. I. Bdelloidea (Rotifera: Digononta). Aust J Mar Freshw Res 37:765–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lafontaine Y, Leggett WC (1989) Changes in size and weight of hydromedusae during formalin preservation. Bull Mar Sci 44:1129–1137

    Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Legendre L (2012) Numerical ecology. Elsevier

  • Longino JT, Colwell RK (1997) Biodiversity assessment using structured inventory: capturing the ant fauna of a tropical rainforest. Ecol Applic 4:1263–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing

  • Mark RJ (1991) Sampling and preservation methods for the quantitative enumeration of microzooplankton. NZJ Mar Freshwater Res 25:305–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maré MF (1942) A study of a marinc benthic community with special reference to the microorganisms. J Mar Biol Ass UK 26:517–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Meira JR, Moura FR, Garraffoni ARS (2013) Lotic meiofauna communities as bioindicators of aquatic pollution in the State Park, Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 7:991–1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento FJA, Naslund J, Elmgren R (2012) Meiofauna enhances organic matter mineralization in soft sediment ecosystems. Limnol Oceanogr 57:338–346

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nenadic O, Greenacre M (2007) Correspondence analysis in R, with two and three-dimensional graphics: the ca package. J Stat Softw 20:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesteruk T (1991) Vertical distribution of Gastrotricha in organic bottom sediment of inland water bodies. Acta Hydrobiol 33:253–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas WL (2006) The meiofauna of a new South Wales sandy beach: an introduction to the meiofauna of Australian ocean beaches. Wetlands 23:14–31

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara RB, Kotze DJ (2010) Do not log-transform data count. Methods Ecol Evol 1:118–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA (1990) Temporal and spatial dynamics of meiofauna within the hyporheic zone of Goose Creek, Virginia. J N Am Benthol Soc, 17–25

  • Pérez-García JA, Ruiz-Albierno A, Armenteros M (2015) Does morphology of host marine macroalgae drive the ecological structure of epiphytic meiofauna? J Mar Biol Oceanogr 4:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Põllupüü M (2007) Effect of formalin preservation on the body length of copepods. Proc Estonian Acad Sci Biol Ecol 56:326–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricci C, Balsamo M (2000) The biology and ecology of lotic rotifers and gastrotrichs. Freshwater Biol 44:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieger GE, Rieger RM (1977) Comparative fine structure study of the gastrotrich cuticle and aspects of cuticle evolution within the aschelminthes. Z Zool Syst Evol forsch 15:81–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson AL, Rundle SD, Schmid-Araya JM (2000) Putting the meio- into stream ecology: current findings and future directions for lotic meiofaunal research. Freshwater Biol 44:177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid-Araya JM (1995) Disturbance and population dynamics of rotifers in bed sediments. Hydrobiologia 313(314):279–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid-Araya J, Hildrew AG, Robertson A, Schmid PE, Winterbottom J (2002) The importance of meiofauna in food webs: evidence from an acid stream. Ecology 83:1271–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedano F, Marquina D, Espinosa F (2014) Usefulness of meiofauna at high taxonomic levels as a tool to assess harbour quality status. Marina del Este Harbour (Granada, Spain) as a case study. Rev Mar Cost 6:103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Smet WH (2006) Some marine Rotifera from Réunion Island, with the description of a new Lindia Harring and Myers, 1924 and Synchaeta Ehrenberg, 1832. Zool Stud 45:81–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith F, Brown AV, Pope M (2001) Meiofauna in intermittent streams differ among watersheds subjected to five methods of timber harvest. Hydrobiologia 464:1–8. doi:10.1023/A:1013958315189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somerfield PJ, Rees HL, Warwick RM (1995) Interrelationships in community structure between shallow-water marine meiofauna and macrofauna in relation to dredgings disposal. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 127:103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somerfield PJ, Rees HL, Warwick, RM, Moens T (2005) Meiofauna techniques. In: Eleftheriou, A, McIntyre A (eds) Methods for the study of the marine benthos. Blackwell, p 229–272

  • Steedman FH (1976) Zooplankton fixation and preservation. Monogr Oceanogr Methodol 4:1–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang X, Bai Y, Duong A, Smith MT, Li L, Zhang L (2009) Formaldehyde in China: production, consumption, exposure levels and health effects. Environ. Inter. 35:1210–1224. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.06.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ver Hoef JM, Boveng PL (2007) Quasi-poisson vs negative binomial regression: how should we model overdispersed count data. Ecology 88:2766–2772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace RL, Smith HA (2013) Rotifera. eLS. doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0001588.pub

    Google Scholar 

  • Westheide W, Purschke G (1988) Organism Processing, p. 146–160. In: Higgins RP, Thiel H (eds), Introduction to the Study of Meiofauna. Smithsonian Institution Press

  • Wetzel MA, Leuchs H, Koop JHE (2005) Preservation effects on wet weight, dry weight, and ash-free dry weight biomass estimates of four common estuarine macro-invertebrates: no difference between ethanol and formalin. Helgolander Meeresunters 59:206–213

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Paula Munhoz Omena and Yasmina Shah Esmaeili, Msc, for comments on the first draft of the manuscript and Yasmina Shah Esmaeili, Msc, and Kayla Ann Margaret Wirthwein, who edited the English text. Three anonymous reviewers are also acknowledged for offering suggestions that greatly improved the paper.

Author information

Author notes

  1. André R. S. Garraffoni

    Present address: Laboratório de Evolução de Organismos Meiofaunais, Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, Brazil

    André R. S. Garraffoni & Fabrício C. Alcântara

  2. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Departamento de Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil

    Hélio H. Checon

Authors
  1. André R. S. Garraffoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabrício C. Alcântara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hélio H. Checon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André R. S. Garraffoni.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Hideyuki Doi.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM1 (DOCX 513 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garraffoni, A.R.S., Alcântara, F.C. & Checon, H.H. Evaluating the anesthetization and fixation efficacy of “soft” and “hard” freshwater benthic meiofauna: what is the best method for specimen preservation?. Limnology 18, 209–218 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-016-0502-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-016-0502-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation